Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Maintaining weight by exercise sets us up to get fat. There is always going to be events that can prevent exercising regularly. By all means exercise even if only walking a quarter of a mile daily but do not require exercise to burn calories but do it for your health as one posted above.
If we wanted, we could say, "Maintaining weight by diet sets us up to get fat. There is always going to be some event where we're expected to eat more than usual or on a day we're stressed, we'll eat more than usual." I can't see that one statement is any less true than the other. But exercise is good for stress, so overeating due to stress is less likely and even if you do overeat occasionally. Exercise allows you to cut back on calories without feeling deprived.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP is giving that number. I outweigh you by over 30 pounds.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
This morning, MFP gave me 930 calories for walking 4.5 miles at a 4.0 mph pace. That's not even remotely possible.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.
I just checked in the MFP database. A 68 minute walk at a 4 mph pace at my weight (188.5 lbs.) calculates to 485 calories.
How are you getting 930?
And there's no way you would really burn that much.
Ok. I just recalculated it at my initial weight of 225 lbs. (36.5 lbs. more than I weigh now), and it comes out to 578 calories.
Again... where are you getting your numbers?
Sounds like you are over exaggerating the exaggeration.
Again... I'm getting it from MFP.
I am getting this from the MFP database
How Many Calories Did I Burn?
Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace
Your Weight: 225
How Long: 64
Calories burned: 544
Are you using an activity tracker that syncs to MFP?
Maybe you have something set wrong somewhere.
He's also 6'7". These last few pages, I'm shocked at how many people are surprised that MFP has different calories burned for people of different ages, weights, heights, and genders...
I know. I always thought it was wildly known that the trackers were off. I've been of that thought for years and never put much stock in the calorie burns on machines or on apps or trackers. I was actually really happily surprised to learn the estimates from FitBit are actually pretty spot on. I had assumed it would be way off as well. In maintenance it is really nice to have something that I can pretty much trust to show me my day in and day out TDEE.
I've been pleased with using my Fitbit in combination with MFP for the last 2.5 years, as well. My Garmin GPS/HRM gave me 321 calories for my 3.4 mile run at 5.4 MPH this morning. My Fitbit gave me credit for 260 of those.0 -
My Fitbit was spot on when I used it to calculate burn. (Too bad it's broken and I've yet to get it fixed/replaced. If I hadn't gone to TDEE method, I can't imagine I would have waited to do so.)0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
Yes. I calculated through TDEE calculations and sleeping burn rate estimations that I burn 120 calories per hour awake and resting. Therefore, no matter what workout I do, I deduct a proportioned amount from the calorie burn output my Timex has. This morning, I burned 750 calories in 45 minutes. Resting, I would have burned 90 calories, so I take 750-90=660 calories. 660 is the burn I log.
0 -
Exercise is for health. How much you eat and whether you are in deficit or not will cause a weight gain or weight loss.
Actually exercise is the only way I get to eat a satisfying amount of food while remaining in deficit. Since it helps me stick to a deficit, it does indeed cause weight loss.
I personally hate study after study about weight loss. As if it's a competition between diet and exercise. BOTH. Do both. If I'm sitting at the beach and notice my skin is getting burned, do I turn to scientific studies to determine if I should a) reapply sunscreen or b) get in the shade? No, of course not. I do both, and fast.
0 -
0 -
Maybe we need to re-formulate the statement a bit and say that " the average person does better when it comes to losing weight with a caloric deficit than with increased exercise ".
Agreed.I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).
It's very silly to try to separate the CI from the CO, as if they don't both count.
Weight loss happens in the kitchen, but it happens in the pool, too.
The average person ( according to the WHO ) in the US does not exercise and even those who do, often don't exercise enough to make a big enough difference to use exercise as a constant tool for weight loss.In order to do so, many would have to sacrifice a lot of other activities, which I think most people are not willing to do.
Only a very small group has the interest and lives in the circumstances that make running a 100 miles a week ( or going to the gym every day for more than minimum time ) even possible.
As a former competitive weight lifter I still know people who bike, run or lift weights in a way that they can almost eat anything they want ( and lots of it ! ), because they burn a lot of calories.
One has not been on vacation for ten years or so, because he feels he cannot stay away from a gym. Another is obsessed with his ( very limited ) diet and his shredding & bulking cycles. He is socially fairly withdrawn, because his " program " is before anything including family birthdays and other celebrations.
The daughter of a friend of mine got so involved with exercise that her family life suffered and her husband asked for a divorce.
I know, those are extreme cases as well as you do also, because the average person will not forgo the spouses birthday party to go to the gym, or will exercise so much that a somewhat varied and normal life is not possible. Most people look for a middle way and that means that for most of us it is easier to lose with a caloric deficit than with exercise.
I agree that exercise is important to maintain good physical, emotional and psychological health, which imo makes eating at a deficit and therefore weight loss much easier
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
What if I run a 5k, or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
What if I run a 5k, or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?
Right, bed rest burning the same amount of calories as brisk walking is not logical.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My Fitbit was spot on when I used it to calculate burn. (Too bad it's broken and I've yet to get it fixed/replaced. If I hadn't gone to TDEE method, I can't imagine I would have waited to do so.)
If you let Fitbit know yours broke they will replace it for you for free. They'll do the same if you lose it.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Saw something on the news this morning about Coca Cola supporting a study that exercise is more important for weight loss than diet. I can see why they would support such a study because they sell sugary drinks, but it still seems interesting to me because I always felt that exercise is more important.
Just wondering what other people think about this.
I personally don't like the idea of giving one more weight than the other. True, you could eat great and never exercise and lose weight, but won't lose of you eat horrifying and exercise, but the combo is awesome for your body and also has health benefits, so really what difference does it make which is more important?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
What if I run a 5k, or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?
Right, bed rest burning the same amount of calories as brisk walking is not logical.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I may have worded that poorly. They were saying the "extra" calories from exercise = the calories from BMR.
So if my BMR burns 56 per hour (about right for me), if I also exercise for an hour I will only burn 56 more calories, for a total of 112. But under their theory MFP will tell me I burned 112 or 168 and cause me to overeat.
Mind you this is not my theory, just what I gather they are saying. I just wanted some type of confirmation or source of why they believe this. So far it's just been "because everyone says so".0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I get the difficulty with calculating HIIT calories but I have a bit of a problem with the idea that walking burns basically the same amount of calories as one's BMR. BMR is by definition the amount of calories you'd burn laying in bed all day. How does walking not burn significantly more calories than lying in bed? How does walking at any speed burn the same amount of calories which is still not significantly more than one's BMR? It's just not logical. In addition, why all of the push to walk 10,000 steps per day if it doesn't "count" as exercise by giving you extra calories?
ETA: OK, I think I get it? Walking supposedly burns the same amount of calories as BMR but in addition to BMR? I always subtract BMR calories from my exercise calories, or at least I used to manually do it before my Fitbit started doing it for me.0 -
Not sure if you're asking for this, but what I believe people have been meaning is MFP doesn't remove the BMR calories from the exercise calories burned. When it adds, for example, 250 calories for an hour of walking, it includes BMR (BMR + Exercise Calories Burned = MFP number) into that total.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
What if I run a 5k, or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?
Right, bed rest burning the same amount of calories as brisk walking is not logical.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I may have worded that poorly. They were saying the "extra" calories from exercise = the calories from BMR.
So if my BMR burns 56 per hour (about right for me), if I also exercise for an hour I will only burn 56 more calories, for a total of 112. But under their theory MFP will tell me I burned 112 or 168 and cause me to overeat.
Mind you this is not my theory, just what I gather they are saying. I just wanted some type of confirmation or source of why they believe this. So far it's just been "because everyone says so".
Example: 1 hours of walking = 250 calories burned
BMR = 50 of those
Actual exercise = 200 of those
You should eat 200 calories, not the 250.
Does that help, or did I misunderstand the PP?
0 -
I love cola. And Coke is tops. Care to compare physiques sometime? Quit blamin the world around you and live your life0
-
-
I have a soda maybe once every couple of months, I refuse to be one of those "I'm addicted to soda people". Wow sorry, really straying off topic. I just finished reading another one such thread, and it just grinds me
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions